Peggy Noonan: ...the public expects the party that loves big government to be pretty good at finagling government, playing with it, using it for its own ends," as opposed to "the anti-big-government party" which "isn't supposed to be so good at it.
Newt: ...we run a much bigger risk in these kind of scandals than do the Democrats whose base is, frankly, much more tolerant of corruption.
Why do they make these really stupid blanket statements? I gotta believe they're both smarter than that. (I KNOW she is, at least.)
And on a separate topic, can we put a hold on the "anti-big-government" shit. This definitely WAS the norm for the Republican party, but these days...spying on Americans, deciding on whether or not someone has a right to die, school prayer initiatives, amendments to protect marriage, unheard of fcc fines to limit free speech...oh, and starting unnecessary wars. That's not big goverment, that's shoved half-way up your colon government. But when some big gov't WAS needed...well, just ask New Orleans what the report card was.
Stumble This
Reddit!
Don't forget running the deficit into the trillions. Amen!
Both parties are plenty corrupt. If the power of government was more limited then the power of government corruption would be more limited as well. The problem in New Orleans wasn't the lack of govt. it was the excess of govt.. With levies that were known to be innadequate only with govt. support would anyone be able to build below sea level in N.O.. No private lender would risk losing their money by lending it to a builder where the chances of it getting destroyed by flood are that high. They wouldn't lend for building unless the levies were seriously strengthened and also there would need to be strong assurance that they would be maintained well. Then a lender would lend and the building would be built. Then after the buildings are built the lenders and owners would make damn sure that the levies are always up to the task, for if they failed they would lose enormous money (nothing motivates like big bucks). Just about the only way that buildings can ever get built where they are highly likely to get destroyed is when the govt. says "Go ahead and build foolishly, we'll fix it when problems arise. We have FEMA." Also all this "Don't worry, big brother is here to protect you" nonsense has conditioned people not to do anything for themselves. Look at how many people just sat around complaining that the govt. isn't transporing them out of harms way. Plenty of those idiots died because they couldn't be bothered to get themselves to safty (yes I know some of them couldn't move themselves, but most could have found a way). A recent govt. sanctioned study found that govt. at all levels (run by Dems and repubs both) failed miserably to help properly after and before Katrina. If you don't want another fiasco like happeed with Katrina, then eliminate FEMA, and get govt. out of that kind of buisiness.